|
You are kindly invited to comment, see bottom of the page.
printable version
Learning Innovation for the Adapted Lisbon Agenda
Policy Paper of the European ODL Liaison Committee, approved
by the Member Networks and released 3 May 2006
1. INTRODUCTION: A NEW FOCUS
The Lisbon Agenda has been adapted in 2005 to act as an updated focus for
European policy development. The adapted agenda calls for a strong and fundamental
effort to equip the European citizens at all levels with the right knowledge,
skills and attitudes, and society at large with a full understanding why this
is needed. The present education and training systems are not completely equipped
to face this challenge through conventional learning methods. A substantial
amount of learning innovation will be required for which the knowledge base
is only fragmentary now.
In the new environment, the flexible, open, innovative – the so called “atypical” – forms
of education are certainly in the position to offer contributions and solutions
not only to make possible a more effective and efficient investment in education
and research, but also to bring learning opportunities closer to SMEs and to
help individuals to be more prepared for their working life and citizenship
agenda. It is worth recalling, that in 2004 a Policy Paper “Distance
Learning and eLearning in European policy and practice: the vision and the
reality” was delivered by the European Open and Distance Learning
Liaison Committee (LC) to European and national policy makers in charge of
learning
innovation.
The Policy Paper was generally well received, broadly quoted and commented
upon and produced a certain impact on European Commission action, particularly
attracting the attention on the need of coordination among EC services, on
the opportunity to connect the Lifelong Learning agenda and eLearning developments,
and finally on the opportunity to consult more systematically the relevant
professional networks and stakeholders on new policy developments.
Recognising that significant progress has been made in the last couple of
years in many areas, the present document aims at pointing out a major problem
that emerged in the last year of discussions on eLearning and ICT for learning:
the knowledge gap on learning innovation.
This problem is deriving from (1) a lack of priority for a comprehensive learning
innovation within research programmes and (2) the lack of accumulation and
utilisation of current practice and the few available research results, including
the consolidation of the knowledge gathered and available. For successful implementation
both are needed in a well-constructed connection.
This paper of the Liaison Committee addresses the policy level issues of the
Lifelong Learning context as a natural continuation of its earlier recommendations
which mainly concerned open, distance and e-Learning. The Committee feels that
it is now the right moment to call attention to these issues, since the experience
of the member networks, each one in its own environment, shows that it is not
possible to bring ICT-supported learning innovation into mainstream education
and training if the supportive environment and the right context are lacking.
Sustainable improvement can only be reached if the use of ICT and flexible
focus of learning are proposed not as a specialised theme in the periphery
of policy discourse, but at the heart of it.
The following sections 2 and 3 attempt to clarify the present situation, while
the final section 4 proposes a few recommendations for urgent action by EU
institutions, national governments and other stakeholders of education and
training systems.
2. A RENEWED AND RE-ORIENTED INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH
It is widely accepted that Human Resources are the determining factor for
the drive towards competitiveness and growth in the knowledge-based economy
and are critical to the achievement of inclusiveness, social cohesion and equity.
In parallel, globalisation, suggesting mobility for goods, services, labour,
ideas and societal practices, coupled with the pervasive effect of the proliferation
of information and communication technologies, is exercising a strong pressure
on existing education and training (E&T) systems, which run the risk of
losing relevance and effectiveness. In the past, these notions have been stressed
time and again; however, in our view they lack until now comprehensive rethinking,
supported by validated experience and solid research.
Educational research that is relevant within the actual policy context, timely,
conceptually ambitious, culturally sensitive and, above all, of convincing
scientific quality is now essential for the long-term success of Europe.
In all recently adopted Communications (and Reports, EU Policy Frameworks,
etc), education, training, human resources and employability are being intertwined
and increasingly related to reforms in national learning systems in Europe,
in the frame of the lifelong learning perspective.
In order to conceptualize effectively the contribution of national and European
E&T policies in achieving the goals set at political level in terms of
development, employment, etc., it seems appropriate to recall the main relevant
European policy documents produced over the last four years. In fact, education
and training are exemplary as policy area for subsidiarity to play its full
role – also according to the treaty establishing the European Communities –,
and the increase of the quality and the scope of EU initiatives fostering E&T
quality, access and openness has been spectacular.
In particular, six relevant strands of actions related to E&T research
can be identified:
- The adapted Lisbon strategy
- The European Employment strategy
- The commitment of the EU vis-à-vis
Lifelong Learning
- The actions aimed at increasing mobility of learners,
trainees and workers
- The Copenhagen Process of enhanced cooperation in
the field of Vocational Education And Training
- The European Social Agenda
In spite of the fact that all these policy strands recognize the priority
of human resources development and citizens’ empowerment, research on education
and training in Europe is presenting a number of critical weaknesses, which
might jeopardize the ambition of Europe to grow and generate new employment.
Notwithstanding the importance of independent (i.e., not policy-driven) critical
research, some key problems that European research in E&T present today
can easily be identified:
- It is often poorly connected with the changes and
innovation processes taking place in education and training systems and
it is insufficiently focused on
the challenges that E&T systems are facing;
- It is often limited by
national disciplinary and curricular logics and funding streams and, consequently,
does not often adopt an integrated thematic
approach;
- At the national level, research on E&T often depends on
both the education and the research authorities, among which a higher degree
of
coordination
and synergy should be expected.
- In several countries it tends not to be
exposed to internationalization and to be limited to the “national
traditional mainstreams”.
This fact does not contribute to a high reputation of educational research
within the
international research community;
- At the EU level, in each of the DGs
that provide funding to E&T research
such research does not get high priority in the relevant Programmes (e.g.
IST,
Priority 7) while in specific E&T innovation Programmes Leonardo, Socrates,
or Employment innovation oriented initiatives (EQUAL, European Social Fund)
insufficient resources can be devoted to studies and research; furthermore,
the efforts of these entities and programmes are not enough coordinated
among themselves and with the respective national authorities;
- The scale
of research funding is a very small percentage of the overall expenditure
on education and training.
In order to improve the state of the art of research on Education, Training
and Lifelong Learning at national and at European level – and so to increase
its contribution to and impact on the required learning innovation –,
it is necessary to devote higher attention to this field in terms of policy
attention, implementation effectiveness and resources. This should be done
at complementary levels, by improving coordination, evaluation and utilization.
This does not mean to limit fundamental and curiosity-led research, but to
find a balance between autonomy/originality and the need for research leaders
to be accountable to society on how and where they direct research resources
when a compelling need to produce an impact exists in education and training
systems, and in society at large.
We therefore propose the following concrete initiatives:
- to promote educational
innovation research and its coordination by well-organized measures at EU
and national level. An effort should be made to create a visible
and interdisciplinary area for research on learning innovation within the
EU 7th Framework Programme for RTD, within the new Integrated Programme
on Lifelong Learning and in the DG Employment and Social Affairs action lines
devoted to innovation; the same should apply to National Research Plans,
many of which tend to reproduce the architecture of the EU Framework Programme.
At present finding a “place” and a funding opportunity for
integrated and interdisciplinary research on learning system interaction
is often impossible
since every specific programme stresses much more technological or social
aspects of research, defining “not innovative enough” or “not
corresponding to the work plan requirements” any proposal which tries
to balance and integrate the different perspectives through which one can
study learning systems innovation.
- to increase the relevance of educational
research in Europe, with a focus on meaningful linking and integrating
the existing research domains (pedagogy,
psychology, technology, organization, economics, institutional reform,
links to society, etc.), establishing further interdisciplinary contexts
that might
better relate to the present and future challenges of learning systems,
according to new thematic clusters. An effort is required to make the research
community
understand the societal demand for accountability and relevance of educational
research;
- to evaluate and systematically utilize research results, thus
maximizing the impact of research on innovation and effectiveness of education
and
training systems, and strengthening the case for increased funding to
educational research.
3. A LACK IN ACCUMULATION AND UTILISATION OF AVAILABLE KNOWLEDGE
An excuse for not investing more in educational research might be that there
are already so many results which are not used in practice that the first priority
should be to transfer existing results to the educational practice.
Although this is not a good reason to limit investment in research, the argumentation
contains a very good point: research results – and more generally experience
and knowledge derived from innovative practice – are presently under-utilised
in mainstream practice.
There are, in fact, several aspects in this problem that, in a rather simplified
diagnosis, can be summarised as follows:
- the lack of accumulation of available
knowledge, a typical “not invented
here” syndrome that makes both researchers and innovative practitioners
prefer “starting from scratch” and be “new heroes” of
learning innovation in their own environments rather than build on recent
progress made by someone else;
- the limited effort done to circulate results
of innovative projects when the funding life-cycle expires;
- the lack
of awareness by decision makers of promising – but small-scale – innovation
results achieved by pilot projects and action-research;
- the objective difficulty
to implement system level innovation in education and training institutions
that have limited possibility (financial resources,
flexibility, real autonomy, etc.) to activate change levers;
- the ways
to promote top-down innovation initiatives are not always “user
friendly”, and the implementation models seldom allow people on the
front-line
–
typically teachers and trainers – to take the necessary time and knowledge
to become owners of the innovation proposed. That is usually stigmatised as “resistance
to innovation” but is frequently a well-founded resistance to “unconvincing
innovation”, plans that do not match, nor negotiate with the visions
of the world of the interested stakeholders. Institutional leadership should
create top-down the necessary conditions for fruitful bottom-up initiatives.
Each of these five aspects of the problem requires action at the level of
European Institutions, National and Regional Governments and other policy makers,
not in the last place at institutional level. In particular, while we appreciate
the increased focus that European Programmes put in recent years on valorisation,
dissemination, sustainability and mainstreaming at project level as a criterion
for selection of new proposals (and see the risk of a certain routine emerging
without real change), we would like to attract the attention on the need to
work at a more systemic level on knowledge accumulation and dissemination.
Not all the responsibility has to be put on project partnerships. Thematic
showcases of project results - preferably cross-programme - might be an easier
source of information and documentation than hundreds of half-dead project
web-sites.
Encouragement to utilise research results and to implement large scale innovation
should be made available at all levels of policy making, from the European
Education Council to the leadership of education and training institutions;
and encouragement does not only consist of visions and framework policy papers:
it needs to include top level commitment, reward to innovators, strategies
and monitoring instruments that help to learn from mistakes rather than killing
anything that does not perform perfectly after two years and institutional
sanctioning of actors involved..
This culture of support to innovation – that is claimed as necessary
in the European economy and society – needs to be embedded first of all
in every part of our education and training systems. If it does not happen
within learning systems, it is very unlikely to happen in society at large.
The capabilities in education institutions to implement learning innovation
using ICT have been analysed in earlier papers of the Committee and in the
HECTIC project.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Several points of action can be identified from the considerations expressed
in the previous sections. Some call for immediate intervention, while others
are more directed to set renewed working conditions to better link policy,
research and innovative practice.
4.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR URGENT ACTION AT EU LEVEL
U1. Establish a consultation and operational framework to guarantee sufficient
resources for education and learning innovation research, eventually
establishing a Bridge Programme or Action Line on Learning System Innovation,
at both EU
and national level. If this objective cannot be achieved, at least guarantee
that existing work plans encourage and welcome an integrated and interdisciplinary
approach to learning systems innovation.
U2. Increase the space and funding
for research and evaluation within the new integrated programme for Lifelong
Learning and within the DG Employment
and Social Affairs initiatives oriented towards innovation, so to encourage
the necessary links among Innovative Practice, Policy Making and Research.
U3.
Guarantee that the new Lifelong Learning Programme pays sufficient attention
and devotes appropriate resources to flexible and distance learning and technology
supported learning, especially for the hitherto neglected areas of informal
and non formal learning.
U4. Make sure that – when the new generation of European Programmes
is starting in 2007 – visible research results and previous projects
results are made available, in a user-friendly thematic approach, to new proponents
to avoid massive
“
re-inventing the wheel” and waste of public resources.
U5. Dedicated
policies at European and national/regional levels will be needed to stimulate
and support leaders in E&T institutions to decide on and implement
the strategic changes they opt for. These policies should address coherently
personal and institutional development aims, to guarantee full adoption of
the innovation agenda at all operational levels.
4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SYSTEMIC INNOVATION SUPPORT AT ALL LEVELS
S1. Link educational policies to broader innovation, competitiveness and inclusion
policies in order to respond to the needs for education and training that result
from the adapted Lisbon Agenda.
Involve the professional environment both in the definition of the new Lifelong
Learning Programme and in the implementation of its strategic actions.
S2. Develop effective mechanisms to let all stakeholders contribute to the
development of a new research agenda. Promote utilisation of research results
by stimulating both researchers and “research users” (practitioners,
policy makers, education and training institutions) to establish collaboration
channels and to adopt mutually understandable terms, concepts and – most
importantly – some common value commitments and visions on future Lifelong
Learning in Europe.
S3. Make all possible efforts to develop a culture of innovation in all education
and training institutions and in all policy making bodies; concrete support
and rewarding mechanisms have to be given as much importance as strategic orientations
and financial resources to this purpose.
S4. Efficiently combine top-down and bottom-up approaches to learning system
innovation, always reminding that innovation cannot be imposed: it has to be
adopted, and the energy and motivation at all levels can only be sustained
by promoting and allowing ownership of innovation by all stakeholders.
S5. More effective communication approaches are needed to involve media and
create public awareness, but also to establish the capacity of policy makers
to listen to the suggestions and the proposals coming from all stakeholders
of the education and training systems. Transparent, coherent and service/support-oriented
policy making processes and policy-derived Programme/project structures are
strong motivators for the uptake of relevant and sustainable change.
The European ODL Liaison Committee and its Member Networks are available for
European and national/regional authorities to support policy design, development
and implementation as discussed in this Paper. They can provide unbiased practice-based
expertise in almost all EU Member States covering most sectors of education
and training. They can be instrumental in guaranteeing the flow of information,
suggestions and feed-back which in our view is indispensable for the shaping
of a Europe which is capable of playing a leading role in a changing world.
3 May 2006
At present the following organisations are members of the European ODL Liaison
Committee:
EuroPACE, Leuven
European Association for Distance Learning (EADL), Arnhem
European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), Heerlen
European Distance and E-learning Network (EDEN), Milton Keynes/Budapest
European Federation for Open and Distance Learning (E.F.ODL), Gent
European Universities Continuing Education Network (EUCEN), Barcelona
International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE-Europe), Oslo
Liaison Committee contacts:
dr Andras Szucs, Secretary, andras.szucs@eden-online.org
dr Peter Floor, Chairman, floor.p@planet.nl
|
